[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6958?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16821548#comment-16821548
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on KAFKA-6958:
---------------------------------------

bbejeck commented on pull request #6410: KAFKA-6958: Allow to name operation 
using parameter classes
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6410
 
 
   
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


> Allow to define custom processor names with KStreams DSL
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-6958
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6958
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: streams
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.0
>            Reporter: Florian Hussonnois
>            Assignee: Florian Hussonnois
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: kip
>
> Currently, while building a new Topology through the KStreams DSL the 
> processors are automatically named.
> The genarated names are prefixed depending of the operation (i.e 
> KSTREAM-SOURCE, KSTREAM-FILTER, KSTREAM-MAP, etc).
> To debug/understand a topology it is possible to display the processor 
> lineage with the method Topology#describe(). However, a complex topology with 
> dozens of operations can be hard to understand if the processor names are not 
> relevant.
> It would be useful to be able to set more meaningful names. For example, a 
> processor name could describe the business rule performed by a map() 
> operation.
> [KIP-307|https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-307%3A+Allow+to+define+custom+processor+names+with+KStreams+DSL]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to